Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [SPAM] [RLC-National] RLC Joke

Expand Messages
  • Carl Graham
    Bill, This response reinforces my confidence in the RLC and its purpose. nuff said.Carl Carl Graham ... From: rlc-national@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Bill,

       

      This response reinforces my confidence in the RLC and its purpose. 

       

      ‘nuff said…Carl

       

      Carl Graham

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: rlc-national@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rlc-national@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of westmiller@...
      Sent:
      Sunday, June 10, 2007 1:48 PM
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [SPAM] [RLC-National] RLC Joke

       

      Posted by: "Guy McLendon" guy@mclendon. net

      > I agree the RLC is a joke if they fail to endorse Ron Paul ...

      If the sole purpose of the RLC were to endorse the
      "correct" Presidential candidate, that might be true.
      On that ground, the RLC has been a "joke" for all of
      its history (minus the six months of endorsing Steve
      Forbes' failed effort). But, of course, that is not the
      purpose of the RLC.

      Our purpose is "promoting the ideals of individual
      rights, limited government and free enterprise within
      the Republican Party ..." through several means.
      ONE of those means is by endorsing federal, state
      and local candidates. Refraining from one endorsement
      in one contest (granting that Presidential campaigns
      are very important) hardly makes the organization a
      "joke". There are tens of thousands of campaigns every
      two years, in which we make no endorsement at all.

      Perhaps the distress is a misunderstanding of what
      an RLC *endorsement* means. We are not a political
      party with the legal and financial power to elect anyone.
      In fact, the RLC cannot legally "support" any federal
      candidate with any of our organizational resources.
      I'd be happy to have the RLC challenge BiCR in the
      courts. Mail your $500,000 check to my attention.
      An RLC endorsement is purely *advice to our
      members* that officers believe a candidate is worthy
      of consideration. End of story.

      > .. Among the RP candidates, the choice is clear.

      RLC officers are neither required nor obligated to
      offer advice to members in every possible contest.
      The RLC does not exercise a vote and we neither
      require, nor do we ask, how our members voted
      when faced with a ballot choice. Depending on the
      circumstances, we respect those members who
      decline to vote, or vote on principled or purely
      pragmatic grounds. That is their choice.

      A significant portion of RLC officers across the
      country believe that our stated goals can be better
      advanced by making NO Presidential endorsement,
      or favor some other tactical alternative. The object
      is to *advance liberty* and officers may believe that
      pragmatic considerations - or specific positions -
      are more important than any specific candidate
      endorsement. That is their choice.
      In other words, we respect the *liberty* of all
      officers and members within the organization to
      make their own decisions about the best course.

      > If they fail to endorse Ron, and soon, I'll have to
      > wonder whether they even support Liberty.

      I personally have few reservations about an
      endorsement of Ron, but I would never suggest
      that those who favor an alternative - or don't think
      an endorsement promotes our objectives - are
      "opposed to liberty".
      NO MATTER which candidate officers or RLC
      members might support, we encourage them to
      be active and advance liberty ideals within that
      campaign. As an organization, we DO NOT even
      try to dictate the wisest course.
      As long as they are "promoting the ideals of
      individual rights, limited government and free
      enterprise within the Republican Party ...", they
      are serving our objectives ... and nothing they
      choose to do is a "joke".

      Bill


      ************ ********* ********* ******** See what's free at http://www.aol. com.

    • DGHarrison
      No, I don t think nuff has been said. If the RLC is not going to endorse a presidential candidate unless all the planets are in exact alignment on an odd
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        No, I don't think 'nuff has been said. If the RLC is not going to endorse a presidential candidate unless all the planets are in exact alignment on an odd numbered date that falls on a Thursday in a year following a Vikings Super Bowl win, or some other nearly impossible concurrence of minds and events, then I'd like to suggest that endorsements be stricken from RLC processes and procedures. If we must have so much fruitless gnashing of the teeth and wringing of the hands over the endorsement of a man like Ron Paul, then it seems to me that the RLC ought not to bother itself at all with such things as endorsing candidates. Let us instead just pursue liberty via all other means and save ourselves the anguish and embarrassment of either endorsing the wrong candidate or failing to endorse the right one. I apologize to all for pushing the idea that Ron Paul is worthy of endorsement by the RLC. I guess we shall have to sit back and watch others endorse Dr. Paul, while we wait for the polls to open in November 2008.

        I suppose others have endorsed Dr. Paul, but I am only aware of these at the moment:
        Libertarian Badnarik endorses Ron Paul
        United Republicans of California (UROC) endorses Ron Paul
        Doug Harrison
        Minnesota

        Carl Graham wrote:

        Bill,

         

        This response reinforces my confidence in the RLC and its purpose. 

         

        ‘nuff said…Carl

         

        Carl Graham

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: rlc-national@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rlc-national@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of westmiller@...
        Sent:
        Sunday, June 10, 2007 1:48 PM
        To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [SPAM] [RLC-National] RLC Joke

         

        Posted by: "Guy McLendon" guy@mclendon. net
        > I agree the RLC is a joke if they fail to endorse Ron Paul ...

        If the sole purpose of the RLC were to endorse the
        "correct" Presidential candidate, that might be true.
        On that ground, the RLC has been a "joke" for all of
        its history (minus the six months of endorsing Steve
        Forbes' failed effort). But, of course, that is not the
        purpose of the RLC.

        Our purpose is "promoting the ideals of individual
        rights, limited government and free enterprise within
        the Republican Party ..." through several means.
        ONE of those means is by endorsing federal, state
        and local candidates. Refraining from one endorsement
        in one contest (granting that Presidential campaigns
        are very important) hardly makes the organization a
        "joke". There are tens of thousands of campaigns every
        two years, in which we make no endorsement at all.

        Perhaps the distress is a misunderstanding of what
        an RLC *endorsement* means. We are not a political
        party with the legal and financial power to elect anyone.
        In fact, the RLC cannot legally "support" any federal
        candidate with any of our organizational resources.
        I'd be happy to have the RLC challenge BiCR in the
        courts. Mail your $500,000 check to my attention.
        An RLC endorsement is purely *advice to our
        members* that officers believe a candidate is worthy
        of consideration. End of story.

        > .. Among the RP candidates, the choice is clear.

        RLC officers are neither required nor obligated to
        offer advice to members in every possible contest.
        The RLC does not exercise a vote and we neither
        require, nor do we ask, how our members voted
        when faced with a ballot choice. Depending on the
        circumstances, we respect those members who
        decline to vote, or vote on principled or purely
        pragmatic grounds. That is their choice.

        A significant portion of RLC officers across the
        country believe that our stated goals can be better
        advanced by making NO Presidential endorsement,
        or favor some other tactical alternative. The object
        is to *advance liberty* and officers may believe that
        pragmatic considerations - or specific positions -
        are more important than any specific candidate
        endorsement. That is their choice.
        In other words, we respect the *liberty* of all
        officers and members within the organization to
        make their own decisions about the best course.

        > If they fail to endorse Ron, and soon, I'll have to
        > wonder whether they even support Liberty.

        I personally have few reservations about an
        endorsement of Ron, but I would never suggest
        that those who favor an alternative - or don't think
        an endorsement promotes our objectives - are
        "opposed to liberty".
        NO MATTER which candidate officers or RLC
        members might support, we encourage them to
        be active and advance liberty ideals within that
        campaign. As an organization, we DO NOT even
        try to dictate the wisest course.
        As long as they are "promoting the ideals of
        individual rights, limited government and free
        enterprise within the Republican Party ...", they
        are serving our objectives ... and nothing they
        choose to do is a "joke".

        Bill


        ************ ********* ********* ******** See what's free at http://www.aol. com.



        --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! ---

      • westmiller@aol.com
        Posted by: DGHarrison DGHarrison@USFamily.net ... In the sense of committing RLC resources to any federal campaign, the provision has been stricken de
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 11, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Posted by: "DGHarrison" DGHarrison@...
          > ... I'd like to suggest that endorsements be stricken from
          > RLC processes and procedures.

          In the sense of committing RLC resources to any federal
          campaign, the provision has been stricken "de jure": it's a
          federal crime.

          In the sense of expressing organizational association
          with a particular candidate, the rule is no impediment: it
          is only the sentiments of RLC officers and members that
          stand in the way. I understand - and share - your basic
          frustration, but I also recognize that the organization is
          what the members chose to make of it ... and I have to
          respect the opinions of other officers and members.

          > .. Let us instead just pursue liberty via all other means
          > and save ourselves the anguish and embarrassment ...

          With or without an official endorsement, RLC charters,
          officers, and members will still decide, irrespective of any
          endorsement, what is the best method of pursuing liberty.
          If the fact is that there's dissent on an endorsement, that
          does NOT preclude the hundreds of other methods and
          means of advancing liberty ... which are always open to
          every RLC member.

          > I guess we shall have to sit back and watch others
          > endorse Dr. Paul ...

          Nothing precludes any RLC officer or member from
          personally endorsing Ron Paul, as long as it doesn't
          imply an official organizational position. I've made it
          perfectly clear that *I* endorse Ron - just as Michael
          Badnarik has done - and hopefully may others will do.

          Remember that Ronald Reagan only had a handful
          of Congressional endorsements (including Ron) in his
          first Presidential campaign. I don't think there are very
          many voters who make their decisions based on any
          other personal (or organizational) endorsements. I
          really doubt that my personal endorsement will be the
          sole motivation of other RLC members to support Ron,
          nor will an official RLC endorsement change anyone's
          mind about the wisest course.

          Bill




          ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com
        • DGHarrison
          I see your point, Bill. I m just tired of evading the question, So, how come the Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party hasn t endorsed Ron Paul? In the
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 11, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I see your point, Bill. I'm just tired of evading the question, "So, how come the 'Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party' hasn't endorsed Ron Paul?" In the minds of some, a failure to endorse equates to a measure of scorn. I keep thinking of that saying, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own relatives, and in his own house." It would be so much easier if I could just tell the doubters that the RLC doesn't do endorsements.

            Doug Harrison
            Minnesota

            Posted by: "DGHarrison" DGHarrison@...
              
            ... I'd like to  suggest that endorsements be stricken from
            RLC processes and  procedures.
                
            In the sense of committing RLC resources  to any federal
            campaign, the provision has been stricken "de jure": it's  a
            federal crime.
            
            In the sense of expressing organizational  association
            with a particular candidate, the rule is no impediment: it
            is  only the sentiments of RLC officers and members that
            stand in the way. I  understand - and share - your basic
            frustration, but I also recognize that  the organization is
            what the members chose to make of it ... and I have  to
            respect the opinions of other officers and members.
            
              
            .. Let us  instead just pursue liberty via all other means
            and  save ourselves  the anguish and embarrassment ...
                
            With or without an  official endorsement, RLC charters,
            officers, and members will still decide,  irrespective of any
            endorsement, what is the best method of pursuing  liberty.
            If the fact is that there's dissent on an endorsement, that
            does  NOT preclude the hundreds of other methods and
            means of advancing liberty ...  which are always open to
            every RLC member.
            
              
            I guess we shall have  to sit back and watch others
            endorse Dr. Paul  ...
                
            Nothing precludes any RLC officer or member  from
            personally endorsing Ron Paul, as long as it doesn't
            imply an  official organizational position. I've made it
            perfectly clear that *I*  endorse Ron - just as Michael
            Badnarik has done - and hopefully may others  will do.
            
            Remember that Ronald Reagan only had a  handful
            of Congressional endorsements (including Ron) in his
            first  Presidential campaign. I don't think there are very
            many voters who make  their decisions based on any
            other personal (or organizational) endorsements.  I
            really doubt that my personal endorsement will be the
            sole motivation of  other RLC members to support Ron,
            nor will an official RLC endorsement change  anyone's
            mind about the wisest course.
            
            Bill
              


            --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! ---

          • DrTomStevens@aol.com
            In a message dated 6/11/2007 4:31:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, westmiller@aol.com writes: Nothing precludes any RLC officer or member from personally
            Message 5 of 7 , Jun 11, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 6/11/2007 4:31:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, westmiller@... writes:
              Nothing precludes any RLC officer or member from
              personally endorsing Ron Paul, as long as it doesn't
              imply an official organizational position. I've made it
              perfectly clear that *I* endorse Ron - just as Michael
              Badnarik has done - and hopefully may others will do.
              ==========
              They can go further if they choose. I endorse Ron Paul, so says Jake Frost, Chair, RLC Alabama.
               
              TRS




              See what's free at AOL.com.
            • westmiller@aol.com
              Posted by: DGHarrison DGHarrison@USFamily.net ... Although that slogan is prominently used by the RLC Texas organization (with permission), no individual
              Message 6 of 7 , Jun 12, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Posted by: "DGHarrison" DGHarrison@...
                > I'm just tired of evading the question, "So, how come the
                > 'Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party' hasn't endorsed
                > Ron Paul?"

                Although that slogan is prominently used by the RLC
                Texas organization (with permission), no individual is the
                sole definition of any organization ... even if they are, in
                effect, the entire organization (eg: Nader = Green).

                The reality is that Ron Paul does not agree with the
                entire RLC Statement, nor does he endorse candidates
                who are endorsed by the RLC (at least not automatically).
                So, the answer I would give:
                "Because Ron Paul is not the RLC and many RLC
                members believe there are higher priorities than any
                single Presidential campaign."

                That doesn't imply that any members "scorn" the
                Ron Paul effort, only that some - while respecting the
                value of his campaign - see other avenues as more
                beneficial to the pursuit of liberty.

                Bill




                ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.